Report of the Leader of the Council

This reports provide an overview of work undertaken and progress towards the delivery of the Council's priorities as set out in the Our Manchester Strategy for those areas within the portfolio of the Leader of the Council.

The Committee considered the report of the Leader of the Council, which provided an overview of work undertaken and progress towards the delivery of the Council’s priorities, as set out in the Our Manchester strategy, for those areas within his portfolio.

By way of a further update the Leader informed the Committee of the launch of the GCHQ Manchester Engineering Accelerator, which would help return added value on investments in the City which were not predictable at the time that the investments were made.  He also reported that the Combined Authority had set out a series of policy developments for the region, which included the proposed new GMSF proposals and consultation and a new housing vision document.  Furthermore, he advised that the Independent Prosperity Review in relation to the Local Industrial Strategy was about to conclude and results would be published on 8 February 2019, which would then be followed by a consultation period.

Some of the key points that arose from the Committees discussions within the Leaders report were:-

·                How had the OMS resulted in activities being undertaken differently and involved Manchester residents;

·                Who was at fault for the recent time table debacle on the rail networks across Manchester and the wider Greater Manchester region and what was the timescale for resolution;

·                Clarification was sought as to what options were being considered at Piccadilly Station as part of Transport for the North strategy;

·                How was the Combined Authority developing its view on the uncertainty of Brexit with a view to mitigating its impact on Manchester;

·                What direct impact had the Our Manchester engagement sessions had;

·                What decisions and associated risk assessments had been taken around the Channel 4 HQ bid; and

·                How did the Calder Valley line sit within transport improvement plans.

The Leader gave examples of two Our Manchester engagement sessions that had resulted in highlighting innovative practices within areas of Manchester which were in the main community led.  He added that these had demonstrated that there were things that communities could take responsibility for and also the role for local members to be community leaders.  In terms of the rail timetable debacle, he advised that ultimate responsibility rested with the Secretary of State for Transport, however there had been a collective failure across the rail industry as Rail Operators, Network Rail and the Department for Transport were all aware before the new timetables were introduced that the engineering works had not been completed and as a consequence, the required numbers of trains had not been available to deliver the new timetable.  He advised that although some improvements would happen in relation to improved fleets from Northern and TransPennine, total resolution of the matter would not be resolved in the short to medium term.  In connection to this, the Leader also advised that the most recent analysis of station options at Piccadilly Station by Arup, had not taken into account any future proofing and had only concentrated on the ability to deliver the day one timetable for HS2 requirements.  There was currently an impasse between Government and the Northern Powerhouse as to what would be the most appropriate reconfiguration of rail services in and out of Piccadilly that could meet the anticipated scale of passenger growth and demand for the next century plus.  He also advised the Calder Valley line still remained a priority within the wider rail improvement network but he was unable to give any detail as to when any activity on this line would take place.

The Leader commented that in relation to the Channel 4 bid, local media reports had not been accurate as the Council had not been in competition with Salford City Council to secure Channel 4’s new headquarters.  The bid submitted had been supported by the GM Mayor and Salford City Mayor.  Appropriate risk assessments had been undertaken and he advised that as in any bidding process, costs had been incurred, but these had not been considered to have been disproportionate given the size of the bid and what would have been the potential value added return should Channel 4 have selected Manchester as its new headquarters.  He added that the cost of the bid would be apportioned with the GMCA as the bid was for Channel 4 to relocate in the Greater Manchester area.

He advised that the Combined Authority received monthly Brexit forecast reports which provided data sectors were responding to the implications of Brexit.  The Combined Authority had also developed hypothetical models for both a ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit and commented that a consensus amongst all GM Leaders was that a ‘No Deal’ Brexit would be the worst option.  He added that due to the uncertainty at a national level of what the final Brexit arrangements would be it was difficult to say how it intended to mitigate any impact on Manchester. 

Decision

The Committee notes the report